Hacker News Reader

Comment by jean_tta | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why major arm contracts suddenly went from having obvious geopolitical implications (e.g. Turkey S-400 procurement) to being "mere contracts".

View on HN

America even sanctions countries it refuses to sells defense systems to, and who then have the gall to buy it from others.

I doubt the EU could even contemplate creating something similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_America%27s_Adversa...

It's not hard to understand why Turkey's case has critical geopolitical implications while Australia's doesn't really have one. I mean, just take a look at the sellers and the military alliances the buyers are in.

Australia went from an ever-closer relationship with France to ditching them, unannounced. Even if it is unwarranted, surely France reaction _is_ a major geopolitical consequence.

> Australia went from an ever-closer relationship with France to ditching them, unannounced.

This is a very disingenuous take on the issue, if not outright completely wrong, and it feels like you intentionally decided to feign ignorance regarding France's failures to deliver and even meet the contract's basic requirements.

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-...

Despite those difficulties (that do not sound ludicrous considering the complexity and the amount of technology transfer that was required, but I'm no submarines expert), as I mentioned in another comment, the joint communique between French and Australian Defence minister from August mentioned that "both sides [were] committed to deepen defence industry cooperation and enhance their capability edge in the region" and that "ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program".

Looking back, it is hard to argue that official line was not very disingenuous, even after acknowledging the issues with the program.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com